Thursday, 23 October 2008

Do the oldies want to sell their decendants down the river?

I keep hearing about the 'demographic time bomb' - where by there will soon not enough native youngsters to pay old peoples pensions.

Some people suggest that this means the UK has to allow immigrants in to work and pay the taxes to pay the old peoples pensions.

Have the old, retiring people been asked about this? have the retirees really said that they want to sacrifice the country they have were born and lived in, that they are content to destory the culture they lived throuh, and leave their children with what ever is left just to keep them in the last few years of their lives?

And this doesn't actually cover the root of the penision problem - why have the government not managed the 'time-bomb' - if more people are needed (and the UK has space for them) why has it been made so expensive for british families to have large families? - if more money for pensions will be needed why weren't those individuals NI contributions saved to cover the coming expense?

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Milliband plays us for Mugs

Milliband Bloke - minister for climate change and something...

He proclaims that by 2050 the UK will have cut CO2 emissions by 80% - to help towards this he is promoting all sorts of technology for the home today.

Given that the target is for 2050, I fail to see what can be done today to contribute towards it -- any insulation/bulbs etc that are installed today will be long gone by 2050, so will make no contribution to the target...

I guess he doesn't have a science degree...

He is clearly a fool, but that is no reason for him to think that we natives are.

Wednesday, 1 October 2008

England "The Stately Home"

There are two great risks to the free people of England. The first is the transformation of England from a dynamic wealth generating marketplace into a stagnant environment living off past glories.

The comparison is to the fading Stately Homes that pepper our country side -- build on great wealth by the rich without a thought to cost, because there was plenty more where that came from, in the same way England has been build on the great wealth generated from centuries of dynamic industry. Now, however, many of the stately homes are fading relics, owned by the poor aristocracy who have inherited the assets, but not the wealth generating abilities of their forebears. Smilarly over a decade of Labour government have left England in danger of being in the same position -our wealth creating abilities stripped and not replace, while the valuable assets are sold off leaving us with a fading husk of past wealth that is expensive to maintain. No one can deny that spending money is fun, but if it isn't being replaced with new income, then once the fun ends it ends forever.

Saturday, 27 September 2008

Debt is Slavery

Debt is evil, nowdays it may be a necessary evil, but it is an evil none the less.

Once you are in debt, you have an obligation to you creditor that can be enforced with the full power of the national legal system.

This is the motivation of Loan Sharks - if someone can be teased over the edge of their ability to pay, then you have them hooked for life.

Like a drug dealer getting new innocents addicted, the approach will be as nice as pie - nothing will be too much trouble, they will be your best of best friends - you may not realise it at the time, but there is a price for this. A price that is so high that it may never be paid off in your lifetime.

The American credit-crunch that has little to do with us (but the government (with the help of the BBC) find convenient to blame for their own failings, and divert attention) is founded on Loan Sharkery.

Very poor people whose only assets might be the roof over their head and their future earning potential were persuaded to take on legally enforcable agreements to receive money now to be paid off in the future - however being poor, and so having little practical knowledge of finaance they never realised the massive burden they were accepting.

Enevitably they could not keep up with their massivley escalating repayment using their meagre incomes, so the Sharks forced them to surrender their only current assets - their houses.

The Sharks were pleased with the deal, they had lent pennies at massive interest rates and now owned empty houses ready to sell.

What went wrong was that the Sharks ended up owning so many such properties, and people in those areas were so poor that the houses could not be sold.

Each loan may have been pennies, but there were so many of them that totalled trillions of dollars. The Sharks had trillions of dollars tied up in unsaleable property - the original owners evicted and still in massive debt.

Liquidity vanished - the sharks supposedly had 'assets', but they could not convert them into cash, so could not pay their own debts.

The Sharks victims were bankrupted - now was the sharks turn...

Credit is evil.

How is this relevant to the Free People of England? It is relevant because the government are activley softening up the younger generation to take on debt with out a second thought. In fact it is worse... If a young person wants to go to University they will almost certainly be obliged to take out a Student Loan from the state - to become a graduate in this country you must take the first steps into a debt ridden future.

The governments behavour on this is too disgusting for words - they might as well oblige all students to smoke 20 cigarettes a day for the duration of their courses - and then wonder why the country has become full of smokers...

Friday, 26 September 2008

Why is there no English War of Independance?

What happened?

One day you turn around and see that a gradual process has made massive changes.

The American war of Independance started with the Boston Tea Party - effectively a popular riot triggered by nothing more a feeling that taxation was unfair.

Today in england we have passively (maybe indoctrinated through state schooling) come to a place where many people seem to honestly beleive that the government is the boss, and they submit to its will.

An individual is allowed to cast a vote for a local MP every 5 years or so, and in return they appear to surrender any claim to self-determination.

Even the poll-tax riots of the '80s were not an attack on the system, they were an attack on the government of the time. And despite those uprisings, it resulted in absolutely no long term impact on the representation of the people. The same could happen all over again, in exactly the same way. Riots and uprisings end in one of two ways - either complete victory for one sie, or in an agreed declaration or charter setting out the settlement that the sides have agreed.

The poll-tax riots led to no such document and the system has not changed, so it must be that it was a victory for the state.

Each such victory for the state over the popular feeling of the people is another ratchet click towards totalitarionism.

People must be encouraged to remember that property rights are a funamental part of freedom. The state has no particular right to separate you from your property - whether the property is money, real-estate or other items, and whether the mechanism to deprive you is taxes, fines or any thing else.

The people may grant the state the power to raise taxes to the level essential to fund those things that are essential and best delivered en-mass. And there is discussion to be had on how such a burden is to be spread. However when the taxman collects, he should acknowledge the generosity of the citizen.

However, things are out of whack - the state beleives that all property belongs to it, and that it can do as it wishes without reference or regard to the individual. And what is most worrying is that many individuals passively accept this state of affiars - while it is expected that the political classes (who run the state) would be attacted to suc a level of control and influence, noone who beleives in freedom can approve of such a situation.

Noone (even the taxman) can be allowed to take an individuals property with such disragard for the indiviudal; and individuals must be educated to realise that their freedom (and the freedom of generations to come) from slavery is fundamentally predicated on them asserting this right to property.

Tuesday, 11 March 2008

Doctors - noses in the trough again.

Peoples freedom in medicine has expanded recently with the the spread of the internet and access to first hand information.

This upsets the medical establishment, as like 'high priests' of old they have manouvered theselves in to the role of gatekeepers, and are cheefully charging the free people of england royaly for access to things that we have already paid for.

The current proposal is that medical 'self tests' currently available off the shelf on demand should be regulated -- i.e. the doctors want to ensure that they get their cut.

This behaviour is specifically cited by Milton Freedman (regulation of medicine) as one of the most obvious examples of the exploitation of the free man by vested interestes, and an attack on individual freedom.